Training and Employment of Classic and Semi-Professions: Intensifying versus Accommodating Logics

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Anthony Jehn, Scott A. Davies, David L. Walters
{"title":"Training and Employment of Classic and Semi-Professions: Intensifying versus Accommodating Logics","authors":"Anthony Jehn, Scott A. Davies, David L. Walters","doi":"10.47678/cjhe.v52i2.189427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over a half century ago, researchers found that so-called classic professions attract socially advantaged recruits with better labour market outcomes; however, as semi professions become increasingly institutionalized, and classic professional programs expand, differences between these two groups may be less pronounced. Using Statistics Canada’s 2018 National Graduate Survey, we compare inputs and outcomes of four classic professions (law, pharmacy, medicine, and dentistry) and three semi-professions (teaching, social work, and nursing). Bivariate statistics show semi-professions have more non-traditionalgraduates who invest less in training. Multiple linear regression models also show that after controlling for demographics, classic professions have stronger education-job matches and higher earnings three years after graduation. We interpretthese findings as being consistent with our theory of intensifying logic, where classic professions have tight training-job connections, and accommodating logic which suggests semi-professions have looser labour market connections. We end bydiscussing directions for future research on the classic and semi-professions.","PeriodicalId":45878,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v52i2.189427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over a half century ago, researchers found that so-called classic professions attract socially advantaged recruits with better labour market outcomes; however, as semi professions become increasingly institutionalized, and classic professional programs expand, differences between these two groups may be less pronounced. Using Statistics Canada’s 2018 National Graduate Survey, we compare inputs and outcomes of four classic professions (law, pharmacy, medicine, and dentistry) and three semi-professions (teaching, social work, and nursing). Bivariate statistics show semi-professions have more non-traditionalgraduates who invest less in training. Multiple linear regression models also show that after controlling for demographics, classic professions have stronger education-job matches and higher earnings three years after graduation. We interpretthese findings as being consistent with our theory of intensifying logic, where classic professions have tight training-job connections, and accommodating logic which suggests semi-professions have looser labour market connections. We end bydiscussing directions for future research on the classic and semi-professions.
经典与半专业的培养与就业:强化逻辑与适应逻辑
半个多世纪前,研究人员发现,所谓的经典职业吸引了社会优势更强、劳动力市场表现更好的新员工;然而,随着半职业越来越制度化,以及经典专业课程的扩展,这两个群体之间的差异可能不那么明显。利用加拿大统计局2018年全国毕业生调查,我们比较了四个经典职业(法律、药学、医学和牙科)和三个半职业(教学、社会工作和护理)的投入和结果。双变量统计显示,半职业有更多的非传统毕业生,他们在培训上的投入较少。多元线性回归模型还显示,在控制人口统计学因素后,经典职业在毕业三年后具有更强的学历-工作匹配度和更高的收入。我们将这些发现解释为与我们的强化逻辑理论相一致,其中经典职业具有紧密的培训与工作联系,而适应逻辑表明半职业具有松散的劳动力市场联系。最后讨论了经典职业和半职业的未来研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Higher Education
Canadian Journal of Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
30
审稿时长
44 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信